Researchers taking on fraudulent science • Hacker News Board

Re: Researchers taking on fraudulent science

#51

Post by neilv » Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 2:19 AM UTC

NiloCK wrote: post #44

neilv wrote: post #38

One of the many troubling things about recently exposed patterns of fraudulent science: every dishonest scientist or professor is taking up a position and funding that could've instead gone to any of surely numerous people with much more integrity. Permit all the cronyism and gaming around university hiring and admissions, and don't hold universities responsible for unethical behavior of their faculty and graduates,…

> every dishonest scientist or professor is taking up a position and funding that could've instead gone to any of surely numerous people with much more integrity. Maybe, maybe not. It feels possible at this point that the entire top of the competitive curve is actively juicing. Ie, with such fierce competition, there could be a vanishingly small cohort of researchers who both operate with integrity and whose CVs are…

> there could be a vanishingly small cohort of researchers who both operate with integrity and whose CVs are competitive for faculty positions.

I think it's fallacious to compare the CV "competitiveness" of a falsifying 'scientist' with a legitimate scientist.

Not that that's what you were suggesting, but maybe we haven't fully accepted what it means to combine the typical daisy-chained/chain-reaction growth of CV opportunities (one prestigious-looking line item opens a door to one or more others), with cheating offering additional boosts as needed at each step.

When an athlete "juices", they can perform with greater strength or endurance.

But when a scientist falsifies research, they aren't performing greater science -- they're performing greater CV (and terrible science).

Competition for faculty positions shouldn't be CV, but the potential for great science.

If an institution wants to use CV as the proxy for science potential, then they have to address that the CV metric is being gamed like crazy, including by falsifying (i.e., terrible) scientists.

Re: Researchers taking on fraudulent science

#52

Post by snapplebobapple » Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 2:21 AM UTC

They need to start putting in grant contracta that if the researxh is found to be fraudulent the ibstitution is resppnsible for oaying back the grant money. This would also helpbsolve the endowment problem

Re: Researchers taking on fraudulent science

#53

Post by jdietrich » Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 2:41 AM UTC

armchairhacker wrote: post #23

derbOac wrote: post #14

I love these people's work. At the same time I don't think any of this really addresses the root causes of the problems, which are career, university administrative, and field (i.e., recognition and attention) incentives. The whole paradigm we use, and the way we treat scientists and fund research, is broken. It feels a little bit like bailing water out of your boat with teacup on one side while ignoring the gaping h…

But how do we “solve” those incentives? There will always be winners and losers, and since successful fraud is by definition indistinguishable from genuine success, there will always be people trying to game the system. The only effective solution I see is making fraud harder to hide. (There’s also making the penalty for fraud higher and trying to instill integrity, but the problem is some people will still take the…

Four words: Academic fraud is fraud. If you accept an NIH grant to conduct a rigorous study and falsify your data, then you have defrauded the federal government. If you are a supervisor, a department head or an administrator and you turn a blind eye to implausible results and indefensible practices, then you are complicit in fraud. If your journal claims to be rigorously peer-reviewed but your reviewers are rubber-stamping papers that they haven't read, then the institutions that buy very expensive subscriptions are being defrauded.

Only in academia is fraud treated as a faux-pas rather than a crime. We have accepted a status quo in which academics and academic institutions play by a different set of rules to the rest of society. As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted and patients are suffering real harm. Academic independence is valuable and should be protected, but independence does not mean impunity.

Re: Researchers taking on fraudulent science

#54

Post by analog31 » Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 2:46 AM UTC

gmd63 wrote: post #50

derbOac wrote: post #14

I love these people's work. At the same time I don't think any of this really addresses the root causes of the problems, which are career, university administrative, and field (i.e., recognition and attention) incentives. The whole paradigm we use, and the way we treat scientists and fund research, is broken. It feels a little bit like bailing water out of your boat with teacup on one side while ignoring the gaping h…

The solution is unfortunately for everyone, more transparency in research. When you conduct an experiment, why on earth is the report composed months, sometimes years later, instead of being streamed live and recorded? Just the same as in business. We need a new more prestigious stock exchange for companies that are willing to open their books up to continual audit. The government can step in to aid businesses and re…

We're not all that different than tech workers. Who wants to be on stage 100% of the time?

Re: Researchers taking on fraudulent science

#55

Post by PeterisP » Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 3:00 AM UTC

nwhitehead wrote: post #43

armchairhacker wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how do we “solve” those incentives? There will always be winners and losers, and since successful fraud is by definition indistinguishable from genuine success, there will always be people trying to game the system. The only effective solution I see is making fraud harder to hide. (There’s also making the penalty for fraud higher and trying to instill integrity, but the problem is some people will still take the…

One idea is to put more pressure on writers of letters of recommendation. There is obviously already some rather weak "reputational incentive" to not give letters of recommendation to fraudsters. But it could be made a more formal policy. Letters could be required to include a statement about the candidate adhering to various formalized "good behavior" policies. Then when fraud happens there could be actual consequen…

If what you propose would be implemented, why would anyone ever write a letter of recommendation? I'm currently doing an unpaid favor to the institution which asks for letters of recommendation, as I spend my time so they get my opinion about the candidate. If instead of thanking me for it they would want to put more pressure on me and assign actual consequences, well, that's insulting and I'd pass, I owe them literally nothing.

Re: Researchers taking on fraudulent science

#56

Post by gmd63 » Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 3:06 AM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #54

gmd63 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is unfortunately for everyone, more transparency in research. When you conduct an experiment, why on earth is the report composed months, sometimes years later, instead of being streamed live and recorded? Just the same as in business. We need a new more prestigious stock exchange for companies that are willing to open their books up to continual audit. The government can step in to aid businesses and re…

We're not all that different than tech workers. Who wants to be on stage 100% of the time?

That's why the incentives exist. Folks who can stomach it get tax breaks or bigger grants. Evidently, we're not able to stop fraud, so it makes sense to analyze how much we're spending fighting fraud, and spend that paying people to be honest.

Re: Researchers taking on fraudulent science

#57

Post by gn4d » Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 3:21 AM UTC

If there are no criminal penalties for the vast majority of academic fraud, it will continue unabated. Similarly, financial fraud is not prosecuted in almost all cases in the USA. And those who do get prosecuted often pay nominal fines if convicted, while they were raking in 8+ figures in personal profits.

Scientific fraud isn't going anywhere, and neither is academic fraud. In fact, it will only continue to worsen as most of the Global North is in a post-Truth, post-meritocratic society. Heck, tenured professors and administrators often will not even be censured except in the most extreme cases, let alone lose their jobs, let alone ever see the inside of a prison cell.

Re: Researchers taking on fraudulent science

#58

Post by jltsiren » Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 3:45 AM UTC

gmd63 wrote: post #50

derbOac wrote: post #14

I love these people's work. At the same time I don't think any of this really addresses the root causes of the problems, which are career, university administrative, and field (i.e., recognition and attention) incentives. The whole paradigm we use, and the way we treat scientists and fund research, is broken. It feels a little bit like bailing water out of your boat with teacup on one side while ignoring the gaping h…

The solution is unfortunately for everyone, more transparency in research. When you conduct an experiment, why on earth is the report composed months, sometimes years later, instead of being streamed live and recorded? Just the same as in business. We need a new more prestigious stock exchange for companies that are willing to open their books up to continual audit. The government can step in to aid businesses and re…

Today I "conducted an experiment". Which means that I went to a grocery store, did laundry, and took a walk in a park. Between all that, I checked once in a while that things were proceeding as expected. The outcome of that experiment is probably never going to be reported, except maybe if something unexpected happens.

Real science is full of messy exploratory work. It's sometimes done remotely, and often in short stretches regardless of what time and day it is. And you usually don't know in advance if it's going to be relevant.

At some point, you may start believing that you have discovered something other people may care about. Then you start thinking about the normative experiments that are supposed to demonstrate the result and perhaps even validate it. But at that point, most of the work is often already done. The discovery has already been made (or at least you believe so) and you are just trying to replicate it. Maybe you could record those experiments if you are really into it. But the recordings would likely be meaningless without the actual written report.

Re: Researchers taking on fraudulent science

#59

Post by gmd63 » Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 4:20 AM UTC

jltsiren wrote: post #58

gmd63 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is unfortunately for everyone, more transparency in research. When you conduct an experiment, why on earth is the report composed months, sometimes years later, instead of being streamed live and recorded? Just the same as in business. We need a new more prestigious stock exchange for companies that are willing to open their books up to continual audit. The government can step in to aid businesses and re…

Today I "conducted an experiment". Which means that I went to a grocery store, did laundry, and took a walk in a park. Between all that, I checked once in a while that things were proceeding as expected. The outcome of that experiment is probably never going to be reported, except maybe if something unexpected happens. Real science is full of messy exploratory work. It's sometimes done remotely, and often in short st…

"Checked that things were proceeding as expected" meaning that there is some process going on that you could be recording?

I don't think it's fair to paint recordings of exploratory work as meaningless. You obviously have some interest in it or else you wouldn't be doing it. If you don't share that experience, wouldn't someone else spend time trying the same thing?

Re: Researchers taking on fraudulent science

#60

Post by doubloon » Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 4:42 AM UTC

georgeecollins wrote: post #11

Frost1x wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is a huge problem. When fraud is rewarded over legitimate research we lose so many times. I’d generalize this further and say we have an underlying economy and society that rewards fraud over what should be happening widespread. It’s happening everywhere and lying seems to be one of the best strategies to success. With competitive pressures increasing, it’s often even worth the risk. This may have always been t…

>> There’s few if any establishments I trust anymore. Sorry, but that's tin foil hat territory. Everyday I trust my bank to handle my money fairly, the gas station to give the right amount of gas, the labels on food and medicine to be accurate, the weather report, etc. etc. I am sure there are problems with virtually every institution that need to be addressed. But I am surrounded by reliable information and trusted…

i actually work at a financial institution and you should not trust your bank, you should review your statements and complain if you find errors. which you will.